Why Military coup has never taken place in India? | Post-independence History of India | UPSC CSE

StudyIQ IAS

28 May 202211:10

Summary

TLDRThe video script discusses the unique relationship between the Indian military and civilian leadership, contrasting it with the history of military interventions in neighboring countries. It delves into the reasons why India has not experienced military dictatorship, highlighting the professional ethos of the Indian Army, inherited from British colonial rule, and the conscious steps taken by India's political leadership to keep the military in check. The script also touches on the diversity within the Indian military and society, which has served as a defense against the possibility of military power grabs.

Takeaways

😀 The script discusses the historical context of military leadership in post-colonial Africa and Asia, particularly in India.
🏛️ The Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's interaction with General Thimayya highlights the civilian control over the military in India.
🗳️ Despite the possibility of military dictatorship in India during 1954-1968, it never materialized, contrary to the situation in some neighboring countries.
👮‍♂️ The Indian military is portrayed as a highly professional force with a proud 250-year history inherited from the British colonial rule.
🇵🇰 The script contrasts India's situation with Pakistan's, where the military has a history of power capture and involvement in politics.
🛠️ The Pakistani military's involvement in civil duties such as cleaning and repairing the city of Lahore in 1950s enhanced public respect for the army.
📢 A popular sentiment in Pakistan in the 1950s was the belief that the military could bring order and stability, which contributed to the acceptance of military rule in 1958.
🛡️ The script emphasizes the steps taken by India to ensure civilian supremacy over the military, including policy changes and the reduction of military influence in policy matters.
💼 The Indian government's response to Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa's economic criticisms illustrates the civilian control and the military's adherence to it.
🔄 The Indian military's structure and culture are such that they do not lend themselves to the possibility of a military coup, unlike in some South Asian neighbors.
🌐 India's diversity is reflected in its military, which is vast and diverse, making unified leadership difficult and reducing the likelihood of military intervention in politics.

Q & A

What significant event is described in the script involving Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and General Thimmaya?
-The script describes an event where Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru visited General Thimmaya's office and noticed a steel cabinet behind the General's dress. Nehru inquired if it contained something important, to which Thimmaya replied that in the top drawer were the country's defense plans, and in the skin drawer were the top channel's confidential feel files.
Why is the Indian military's non-attempt to seize power a point of discussion in the script?
-The script discusses the Indian military's non-attempt to seize power because, unlike many of India's South Asian neighbors, India has never experienced military rule or attempted coups, which is considered unusual given the commonality of military leadership in post-colonial Africa and Asia.
What is the historical context of the Indian Army's professionalism mentioned in the script?
-The script mentions that the Indian Army's professionalism is rooted in its 250-year-old glorious history inherited from the British, which has contributed to its non-involvement in politics and power seizures.
How did the script describe the structural imbalance in Pakistan that contributed to military rule?
-The script describes a structural imbalance in Pakistan, particularly after the death of Jinnah in 1948, where the military was the most substantial inherited institution from the partition, and the political party, Muslim League, was not as influential, leading to a situation where the military had significant power.
What incident in Lahore in 1950 is mentioned in the script, and how did it reflect on the Pakistani military?
-The script mentions an incident in Lahore in 1950 where the military was called in to control a situation that civilian authorities could not handle. After successfully restoring order, the commanding officer made an unusual request to stay a few more days, during which the military cleaned the city, repaired public buildings, and improved infrastructure, which increased public respect for the military.
What was the public's reaction to the military's actions in Lahore in 1950 as described in the script?
-The public's reaction to the military's actions in Lahore was positive, as the military was able to accomplish in a few days what civilian authorities had not been able to do for years, leading to increased respect and admiration for the military.
How did the script explain the difference in the Indian and Pakistani military's involvement in politics?
-The script explains that the Indian military has remained apolitical due to a series of policies initiated by Prime Minister Nehru, which ensured that the military remained subordinate to civilian authority. In contrast, Pakistan's military has a history of political involvement and power seizures, partly due to structural imbalances and the military's significant role in the country's institutions.
What policy changes did Prime Minister Nehru implement to ensure the Indian military remained subordinate to civilian authority?
-Prime Minister Nehru implemented policies that reduced the military's influence in policy matters, such as reducing the salaries of military officers and ensuring that the military's role was limited to defense and not politics. He also personally communicated with military leaders to emphasize their role in a democratic setup.
What was the significance of Krishna Menon's appointment as Defense Minister in the script's narrative?
-Krishna Menon's appointment as Defense Minister was significant because it further clarified the process of civilian control over the military in India, ensuring that the military operated within the framework of civilian authority.
How does the script describe the diversity within the Indian military and its impact on unity and leadership?
-The script describes the Indian military as being very diverse and widespread, making it difficult to have unified leadership. This diversity, however, also serves as a strength, as it prevents the possibility of a successful coup due to the lack of a unified social force that the military could rely on.
What measures were taken to ensure the Indian military's non-involvement in politics, as mentioned in the script?
-The script mentions measures such as the systematic monitoring of the military's activities, the establishment of a counter to its creation, and the requirement for embedders to report on the military's position, all of which were aimed at ensuring the military's non-involvement in politics.

Outlines

00:00

😐 The Indian Military's Non-Interventionist Stance

This paragraph discusses the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's interaction with General Thimayya, where Nehru inquires about the contents of a steel cabinet behind the General, which holds the nation's defense plans and confidential files. The General assures Nehru of maintaining a balanced approach towards military matters. The script then delves into the commonality of military leadership in post-colonial African and Asian countries, with a specific focus on the possibility of military dictatorship in India during 1954-1968. It mentions a 1967 prediction by a Times correspondent, Neville Maxwell, about India's potential for military rule, which was proven incorrect as India has never succumbed to military rule. The paragraph ends with a comparative analysis of the Indian and Pakistani military's roles in their respective countries, highlighting the Indian military's professional ethos inherited from the British and the Pakistani military's involvement in power capture.

05:02

🏛 The Pakistani Military's History of Political Interference

This paragraph provides a brief history of the Pakistani military's involvement in politics, beginning with the country's partition and the significant role the military played due to its recruitment largely from the undivided Punjab. It describes the structural imbalance in Pakistan where the military was the most substantial inheritor of institutions post-partition. The narrative continues with the military's role in the Lahore riots of 1950, where it was called in to restore order, which it did successfully. The military's actions in cleaning up the city and repairing public buildings earned it respect from the public. This respect was evident in 1958 when General Ayub Khan declared martial law and called the army to power, which was met with public approval. The paragraph also touches upon the national development under Ayub Khan's presidency and the eventual decline of military rule due to its inherent issues.

10:04

🏞 India's Democratic Resilience and Military's Subordination

The final paragraph examines the reasons behind the Indian military's non-intervention in politics, despite the diverse and complex nature of the country. It highlights the steps taken by the political leadership, including Prime Minister Nehru, to ensure the military remains subordinate to civilian authority. Post-independence, the Indian military was restructured to function under civilian oversight, with policies that reduced the military's influence in policy matters. The narrative discusses the economic criticism faced by Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa and the subsequent public backlash, which reinforced the idea that the military should not engage in politics. The paragraph also mentions the systematic program initiated in 1958 to monitor the military's activities, especially after the military coup in neighboring Pakistan. It concludes by emphasizing India's unique diversity as a defense mechanism against the possibility of military rule, and the trust that Indians have in their democracy and military.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Military Leadership

Military leadership refers to the authority and influence that military personnel have over political affairs. In the context of the video, it discusses the prevalence of military leadership in post-colonial African and Asian nations, particularly focusing on India's relationship with its military and the absence of military dictatorship in the country's history.

💡Jawaharlal Nehru

Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of India and a central figure in Indian politics. The script mentions him in relation to his interactions with the military, specifically General Thimayya, and his role in shaping the relationship between the military and civilian leadership in India.

💡Military Professionalism

Military professionalism is the adherence to high standards of conduct, competence, and discipline within the armed forces. The script contrasts the professionalism of the Indian military, inherited from the British colonial era, with the political involvement of the Pakistani military, highlighting the different paths taken by the two nations post-independence.

💡Partition of India

The Partition of India refers to the division of British India into two separate nations, India and Pakistan, in 1947. The script discusses how the military structures and recruitment patterns that existed at the time of partition influenced the subsequent roles of the military in both countries.

💡Ayub Khan

Ayub Khan was a Pakistani military general who later became the President of Pakistan. The video script mentions his presidency as an example of military leadership taking over political power, contrasting this with the situation in India where the military has not attempted to seize power.

💡Civil-Military Relations

Civil-military relations is the study of the interaction between civilian leadership and the military establishment within a state. The script explores the dynamics of these relations in India, emphasizing the subordination of the military to civilian authority and the absence of any attempt by the military to usurp power.

💡Political Leadership

Political leadership refers to the guidance and direction provided by individuals or parties in positions of political power. The script highlights the role of political leadership in India in maintaining a balance of power with the military and preventing any military intervention in politics.

💡Diversity

Diversity in the context of the video refers to the wide range of ethnic, cultural, and social differences within India. It is mentioned as a factor that contributes to the complexity of building a unified social force, which in turn affects the potential for military unity and leadership.

💡Army Cantonment

An army cantonment is a permanent military installation that houses troops and is often separate from civilian areas. The script uses the example of the army cleaning and improving the city of Lahore to illustrate how the military can gain public respect and support, which is a contrast to the situation in India.

💡Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa

Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa was the first Indian officer to be promoted to the highest rank in the Indian Army. The script mentions him in the context of public criticism and the government's response to such criticism, illustrating the civilian control over the military in India.

💡Democratic Subordination

Democratic subordination is the concept of the military being under the control of civilian authorities in a democratic system. The video script discusses how this principle has been established in India, with the military operating within the framework of civilian authority and not attempting to seize power.

Highlights

Voice of India welcomes Boot Military to study the unique relationship with political leadership.

Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's meeting with General Thimayya reveals the separation of military and state affairs.

The possibility of Indian military dictatorship during 1954-1968 was not entirely dismissed.

Nehru's subtle nervousness during interactions with the military indicates the delicate balance of power.

Post-colonial African and Asian countries often saw military leadership, unlike India's stable democracy.

The Times correspondent Nevil Maxwell predicted the possibility of military tourism in India in 1967.

All officers who thought India would follow the path of military rule were proven wrong.

The Indian military's professional ethos inherited from the British might explain its non-intervention in politics.

Pakistan's military has a history of power capture, unlike India's.

The structural imbalance in Pakistan post-partition led to a significant military influence.

In 1948, the absence of strong political institutions in Pakistan allowed the military to play a more dominant role.

The Lahore incident in 1950 showcased the military's ability to control situations beyond civilian authority.

The military's request for extra time in Lahore was unusual and hinted at a desire for more influence.

The military's actions in Lahore, such as cleaning and repairing, increased public respect and set a precedent for its role in society.

In 1958, when military dictator Ayub Khan took power in Pakistan, the public was supportive due to the military's previous positive actions.

India's political leadership took steps to ensure the military remained subordinate to civilian authority, unlike Pakistan.

The Indian military's diverse and widespread nature makes unified leadership difficult, supporting the democratic structure.

India's unique diversity serves as its best defense against the possibility of military rule.

In 1978, the Indian Armed Forces were fully approved, marking a major achievement in Nehru's legacy of democracy.

The Indian public's trust in both the political leadership and the military has prevented any attempts at military rule.